(untitled)

I have a growing hatred for people who follow laws blindly. They think if the law is broken even once the police will fuarrrking barge in and arrest you regardless of the circumstances. There are so many unenforceable laws that could be made completely moot if people had two brain cells. If the feds aren't after it your probably fine.

In fact, once you realize the limitation of local police forces it becomes increasingly easy to break laws that don't directly involve another person. If it does involve someone else however, you get to see just how poor people's judgement skills are.

That's why a lot of drug activity gets done in the boonies because internet is too soykaf for the feds to find out, and the local police are non-existent/are on drugs themselves.

The stupid perceptions of the general population continue to amaze me to this day. They only understand absolutes, but the law is a pragmatic beast. If the police are overloaded with cases they will prioritize the ones that directly harm other people and practically discard the rest.

do you have proof that anyone is actually like this ? I like the jaywalking example as a counterpoint. Just about everybody I know jaywalks sometimes, usually with sensible care, but in a surprisingly large number of places this is illegal. No body gives a soykaf of course, and it would be difficult and unpopular to try and enforce it, but its still 'illegal'. People largely follow laws because they make sense / seem reasonable. I don't exactly want to murder people most of the time, and frankly, I generally dislike murdurers, so I'm not going to comit murder. Tomorrow my government could declare murder legal and it wouldn't change my (or most other people's, I think) opinion on it. A lot of laws are like this. They can be laws and can be enforced because people generally agree with them. Its the agreement that allows them to be laws, not the law that causes it to be agreeable.

Laws are supposed to come from natural law. Aka do not harm others. And yet, there are laws which don't follow this premise explicitly. A good example of this is the drug war unironically. Druggies hurt themselves first and foremost. The most you could claim is they have greater potential to hurt others, but acting on this idea would be infringing on their rights. I see it all the time where I live of people agreeing with laws outside of natural law. Its why I'm ranting because those are not laws they are empty vessels made for abuse.

>>30724 Do you think natural law is just? Is it right to form actual laws from it?

>>30724 In my opinion there is a big difference between a law that just protects people and a law that is understood by everyone to actually protect people. Are you following the advice "don't do drugs" because everyone told you to, or because you really know the reasons and maybe have experienced beforehand why that is? My point is that a law that people only superficially agree with does not have the effect people think it does. I imagine it goes a little like this: someone has a very bad experience using drugs, a lot of bad happens and the person (or their relatives if said person is dead) start advocating banning drugs. Now someone who has literally no experience whatsoever hears this and maybe agrees. That person has no real concept of what it means for this drug to be bad in this way, that person can only projectively imagine some scenario and would quite probably misjudge. Real lessons stem from real experiences. This doesn't even touch on the subject that substances are more or less the fabric of our world and that we should just learn to live with them productively. One could argue that particularly synthetic drugs are a problem, but I don't see any way to banish them without de-industrializing our society. So in short, my opinion is that some laws, but particularly drug laws, are just too theoretical and that it would be a lot better to teach people by allowing very controlled experiences so that they can better judge for themselves, because at the end of the day, like so many people say, we want everyone to "do the right thing."

Laws are obviously for the benefit of those who make them and the establishment has provent to break them when they see if fit. People are stupid sheep and will follow whatever they are told, that much is painfully obvious by now. I can understand those trying to avoid consequences. What a i really hate are people that defend the system.

>>30722 Cops are largely regular people who just want to get paid and avoid getting trouble. So they rather take easy cases than gang soykaf where they might get shot. Aint many gung ho playing hero. This is why you get regular stories about nothing getting done while some nerds get chased for months. Easy work with no danger.

>>30725 natural law is the only law which won't lead to corruption on its own because it is integral to our nature not separate from it. So, it is the only just law we can follow. >>30726 Aside from natural law, which is inherently understood, any laws other laws will inevitably spawn ignorant people who don't know the implications. Getting everyone exposed to everything is not possible since that would mean forcing them to do things which may harm them. Not everyone will want to get injected with drugs, but if you want to understand the implications just observing someone else isn't enough.

>>30721 True, cops do enjoy easy cases, but when someone breaks the law in their own house with noone around how could they find something like that out? They can't because they are people who most likely have to be called up in order to investigate most things. This is why you don't involve others because they will freak out and rat out on you for minor things.

>>30728 I feel the same way its very tiresome having to deal with people who don't understand and defend corruption, but I can't hate them. I remember being like that. I just want to change their mind, but something is always in the way. There's an underlying reason people do this, and its because they are suffering. They use corruption as an excuse to continue hurting themselves. Its makes me sad.

Is that guy in an actual hamster wheel? They ought to hang a carrot behind the monitor as well. I think your pic sums it up. It's not that they're afraid but they love their masters.

>>30735 It's more than even that they don't love their masters. They are just too bitter to care anymore. Like a dog who's been beaten so much they've given up. The masters make them hate life and the bitterness eats them up inside.

Laws are to keep poor people in line. Anyone who is rich knows this. Anyone who isn't is in denial. Rich people only get jailed for annoying other rich people.

>>30737 Laws don't apply if you don't get caught. Rich people have the means of doing that easier, but it doesn't always apply to poor people either. The rednecks probably don't have a lot of issues just by virtue of being too poor for anyone to care. The midwits are the ones that are kept in line.

>>30732 >natural law is the only law which won't lead to corruption on its own because it is integral to our nature not separate from it In theory I suppose that's true. In practice legislators (or citizens or whomever sets the laws in a given society) have to come to a consensus as to what exactly "our nature" is. On which there will inevitably be disagreements. Fundamentalists from various religions have very different ideas on the matter, for example. Pragmatism comes with it's own set of problems, the fact that in most cases it doesn't satisfy an emotional desire for retributive justice, but it seems to me a better alternative.

>>30739 Our nature does not need to be defined beyond it is human. Doing anything more would be a detriment. Definitions are only useful if they are built on a foundation of trust that everyone understands everyone else to a certain degree. That's why human nature is the baseline.

Normalize law breaking >option 1, make them realize it is a daily occurance Did you know a study shows that on average a person breaks 3 laws a day? >option 2, make them realize law is relative Show 2 same EXACT same scenarious going to court. One rich one poor. One woman one man. One black, one asian. They won't get same sentences. Show them a study of black people getting higher sentences for same crimes. >option 3, even if you didn't break any laws, those that enforce them will pin them on you if you cross their path? A lot of good examples, quite the most known the Julian Assange. >option 4, laws arent the same thing as a morallity If we knew a straight line between right and wrong for every possible situation in the world, why would then all countries in the world have different laws? See option 2 >option 5, tool for change A government breaks its laws? ITS LAWFUL, you do it against the oppressive soykaf fuarrrk of government? You are thrown in jail. It is a duty of every moral citizen to not follow unjust laws, and to break them actively.

>>30742 Good points, I would say option 1, 3, and 5 with some accompanying studies are the most effective for normal people while options 2 and 4 are for people who want to go more in depth on the subject.

>>30732 >Getting everyone exposed to everything is not possible since that would mean forcing them to do things which may harm them. Yeah, you're right of course, but many substances of abuse can be tried safely. Even those that are frequently demonized such as amphetamines ("speed") won't kill a person in a single use. In almost all cases, a joint won't either. >Not everyone will want to get injected with drugs Of course, you're right. I would argue though, an extreme example such as this one is not as relevant. Injecting, say, heroin, is already quite unappealing to many people, they wouldn't want to anyways. But if anyone does, they're sure to realize (in a very real, experiential sense of the word) some of the downsides. I don't see why we can't be reasonable and practical about this.

>>30746 Controlled environments are definitely helpful at keeping people away from real dangerous ones. In fact they are most likely more helpful than any law could be simply due to the lack of social taboo that often causes people to lose their social structure due to breaking the law.

>>30742 Theres actually a study that shows your chance to get a better sentence in court depends on time, after lunch they are more relaxed, just before when they are hungry they act harsher.

>>30726 Drug laws, in the US at least, were set up to control people. “You want to know what this [war on drugs] was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” ~ John Ehrlichman, Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under President Richard Nixon Things are changing for the better, like psilocybin being decriminalized in oregon but we're still aways from being able to get RCs in a safe, regulated manner.

>>31701 Do not promote the idea that RCs are safe. Better to know the harm profile.

>>30724 > Druggies hurt themselves first and foremost. You have absolutely never seen someone in the throes of meth psychosis, but you're right in the sense of the "natural order of law has been corrupted by power-hungry govt. cockeaters." As for the war on drugs part, I feel like they went about actually doing that in entirely the wrong way. Going after users is inherently self-defeating since, like you said, the vast majority of them don't commit any crime beyond self-harm (weed especially, which is only about as bad as alcohol is, and I suspect will gradually replace alcohol, but I digress), and they're usually turning to drugs because of untreated mental issues. If you wanna solve the drug epidemic, you're gonna need to fix things so the average person isn't fuarrrked in the head, first and foremost, and go after the criminals actually manufacturing and transporting the drugs in the first place. That, of course, is never happening since a mentally ill, fearful population is easier for "our benefactors" to control, and the goddamn CIA is responsible for about half the drug-trafficking that's going on.

>>30719 It would seem that, no matter how silly or trivial a law may be, it is sinful (to varying degrees) to break laws from legitimate authorities that do not oppose the law of God.

>>31922 >it is sinful (to varying degrees) to break laws from legitimate authorities I would very much be interested in your reasoning. Also, how do you discern legitimate and illegitimate authorities? pic unrelated

>>31922 Stuff and nonsense. Remember when Jesus was tormented in the desert? The devil offered Him control of the kingdoms of earth if He would agree to follow him; that's because all those governments belonged to the devil and they were his to give away.

>>31924 Stop worshiping that kike

>>31923 >>31924 Maybe not the answer you wanted, but: “17. Tell us therefore what dost thou think, is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? 18. But Jesus knowing their wickedness, said: Why do you tempt me, ye hypocrites? 19. Shew me the coin of the tribute. And they offered him a penny. 20. And Jesus saith to them: Whose image and inscription is this? 21. They say to him: Caesar’s. Then he saith to them: Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God, the things that are God’s.” (Mat 22:17-21, DRV) It seems the Catechism of the Catholic Church also teaches obedience from this: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c2a2.htm It somewhat troubles me since there are so many minor laws that don't matter, but I think those would be classified as venially sinful. Maybe I should speak with a priest about this. >>31924 Interesting. I think though, even if they are bad, we are supposed to think of earthly leaders like parents and obey them unless actively/positively immoral.

>>31929 >>31923 Also, what constitutes legitimate authority, is a legitimate question

>>31930 >>legitimate question Legitimate according to whom?

>>31929 i read the entire testament and i dont remember any section telling you to listen to your king. The kings are mostly adversaries. For once the guy who tried to kill jesus. For two section where a king gets pwnd for not listening to god while some villagers get the secret gang sign from angel to avoid getting pwnd while god is on mass murder mission. For three the whole fleeing instead of obeying from a king story. The whole divine mandate justification was likely made up entirely by priest class to get paid by king. Catholicism did bring one thing to the table - monotheism. Which meant nobody could say i don't care i serve another god. That was their selling point when the desert rats came with their religion over to europe.

>>31933 Me; I thought so >>31934 Sola scriptura I guess you don't accept what seems to be Cathokic teaching then However, it's not like earthly authorities are infallible; they can be very sinful and prone to error. Maybe there can be exception then, but I think obedience is still generally due, as with a bad father.

>>31936 They are fabricating in general. Learning latin also learned roman culture had a rule of being allowed to strike back on second offense. You had to endure the first offense but you could attack on second offense without holding back. In that context jesus turning the other check can be interpreted not as endure and be merciful but a " I dare you, I double dare you, moterf|_|cker!" pulp fiction play which is also more in line of how he also gets violent with the money lenders. Telling people to retaliate is of course politically undesirable. After all they are supposed to give away all power to state and vigilant justice is branded evil. I believe all institutions suffer the same fate: competition for power corrupts them as cheating is an advantage to succeed in the organization which puts cheaters on top. This is true from simple small scales examples like local tournaments where top players fix matches to ensure they keep winning to the largest international organizations where its even public knowledge the head has a solid criminal record. In the realm of Catholics you also know that the bible is a selection of chapters where many more exist the church choose to exclude. Another way to say it is they censored out what didn't fit for the intended preached teachings.

>>31919 >You have absolutely never seen someone in the throes of meth psychosis. True when I said Druggies hurt themselves first and foremost it was in the context of them taking the drugs not whatever they do after taking the drugs. In a legal context this distinction is important because of the presumption of innocence. Linking the drugs directly with voilence will unfairly associate Druggies who don't harm others with the ones that do creating an unjust system in the process.

>>31936 > it's not like earthly authorities are infallible I'm reasonably sure that if I could ask Jesus right now, He'd say there isn't a single government on Earth currently that are worth supporting.

>>31929 Did you not notice there... Jesus wasn't carrying a single coin? Someone had to bring him one as an example. The whole point of that was the "we shouldn't even be using their money". Why else did he include "tax collectors" among the sinners he was reaching out to including prostitutes and common thieves? This is one of the most misunderstood passages in all the gospels.

>>31937 The Catholic perspective is that the Holy Spirit protects the Church from binding to or formally teaching error. Perhaps ironically, the Protestants actually remove more books from the Bible (the Deuterocanon, to align with Hebrew canon); Luther also wanted to get rid of the Epistle of James (e.g. because it suggested opposition to sola fide). Also, a Catholic priest once described the "turning the other cheek" as forcing the person slapping you to respect you by turning the more "respectable" side towards them (rather than the offensive side they targetted). >>31940 Yes, the disciples were told not to carry posessions with them but the clothes on their backs, and to detach from the material world, but the problem with tax collectors was that they were greedy extortionists who took more than what people owed.

>>31942 >>31940 There is also the point that Roman money had human visages on it, which violated Jewish rules about graven images. Herod when he was in a conciliatory mood with the Jews under his rule (he was not always) sometimes issued coins with no faces on them so they could participate. >> [citation needed]

Do you own the property rights on that image?

Lainon you kant just break the law!

>>31949 lainon did you just make a Kant reference? I see you have excellent taste. >>31948 The image was free as in freedom lainon

>>31947 This wasn't Herod, but Pontus Pilate. Herod and his sons were Jewish (Or at least practiced Semitic monotheism).

>>31701 the war on drugs was never seriously pursued. it was there as a halfassed joke for decades, neither controlling the hippies nor the blacks but perhaps driving both to further general disregard of order and making a lovely demo of anarcho tyranny of inconsistent rule enforcement, a carefully balanced act to maximize criminality, maximize imprisonment, while minimally reducing drug useage and perhaps even increasing it. Got to remember that just before and even while some of this was going on the FBI was kidnapping whores and drugging them among other things.

>>33530 I do wonder who runs those labels...